J. D. Legaspi Construction vs. NLRC - Chan Robles and Associates ...

execution; (2) the writ was improperly implemented because
petitioners were never personally served a copy of the writ of
execution issued by the labor arbiter and (3) petitioners were
deprived of their right to due process of law because of the gross
negligence of their former counsel. chanroblespublishingcompany
The labor arbiter denied said motion to quash.
On January 8, 1999, petitioners elevated the matter to the NLRC by
filing their appeal memorandum. However, on June 21, 1999, a
decision was rendered by the latter affirming the assailed December
9, 1998 Order of the labor arbiter. A motion for reconsideration was
filed on July 26, 1999 seeking to reverse and set aside the decision
dated June 21, 1999 and praying that judgment be rendered quashing
the writ of execution and canceling the annotation on the title. On
August 18, 1999, the NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration.
Unfazed, petitioner went up for the second time to the Court of
Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, harping on the alleged denial of due process brought about by
the incompetence of their previous counsel. chanroblespublishingcompany
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition:
Note that from the inception of the case the address of
petitioners as appearing on record of the NLRC and where the
sheriff had served the notice is at “98 Amity Ext. Annex 16-18
Better Living Subdivision, Parañaque, Metro Manila. The
sudden change of address was never brought to the attention of
the NLRC and petitioners faulted their former counsel for his
inaction. It may be true that there was apparent negligence on
the part of petitioners’ counsel in not informing the NLRC on
the change of address, however, petitioners themselves are not
entirely blameless for they should have taken the initiative to
inform the office of the labor arbiter of the change of address,
for what is at stake here is their interest in the case. Moreover,
they cannot be credited with good faith in changing their
address, in fact, their act of transferring to another place would
draw a suspicion that they were trying to evade or escape
obligations. Hence, for failure to notify the office of the labor